jmar

dsladek

sokowa wrote:FOOOOOOOOG!
Congrats D! Was only a matter of time before you'd be fogging (and I assume it'll be a regular thing going forward)

thanks sokowa! My first shirt design "Ooh Shiny" got fogged late just like this one. and it got placed fourth. unless I get a mad amount of votes in the next fifty minutes I fear that this design might also receive fourth. not to bad for such a late start.

thank you everyone for your comments and your votes! keep the votes coming there is a little time left!

antifolkhero

How about we let the South float away into the abyss instead? Just because reality TV comes from California doesn't mean the entire state is bad (though I can imagine the jealously of someone living in Michigan).

wettoad

antifolkhero wrote:How about we let the South float away into the abyss instead? Just because reality TV comes from California doesn't mean the entire state is bad (though I can imagine the jealously of someone living in Michigan).

alitaorg

Woot is a for-profit company with a subset that sells shirts. Yes, their rules for rejection can be inconsistent to just plain arbitrary, but they're set so that the shirt voted most likely to be bought by the most people will be the one that's printed. Woot's not giving away $1k for the love of the art - they're selling shirts.

Instead of appealing to Joel the Rejector or to the artist, our best bet is to appeal to the voting majority's aesthetics. Because as long as shirts with birds in silhouette get votes and, more importantly, make Woot money, Woot will print 'em.

eHalcyon

rdyoungster wrote:This is too bad. It's really the only shirt I kinda liked this week. You know, Gary Larson drew over 4000 comics before his retirement. I just don't see that there's enough similarity to base a rejection on. It's like basing a rejection on the fact that "the Simpsons did it." Of course they did. You don't create a 20 year (or 14 year daily body of work in Larson's case) without encompassing nearly every kinda cool idea under the sun.

Just strange.

Ha, that happened to me in the Slogan derby. My slogan was "My favorite color is shiny," which is something my friend always used to say. We were both avid Simpsons fans but never heard it or anything similar said on the show, yet it was rejected for being a Simpson's reference. Meh.

eHalcyon

alitaorg wrote:Woot is a for-profit company with a subset that sells shirts. Yes, their rules for rejection can be inconsistent to just plain arbitrary, but they're set so that the shirt voted most likely to be bought by the most people will be the one that's printed. Woot's not giving away $1k for the love of the art - they're selling shirts.

Instead of appealing to Joel the Rejector or to the artist, our best bet is to appeal to the voting majority's aesthetics. Because as long as shirts with birds in silhouette get votes and, more importantly, make Woot money, Woot will print 'em.

I disagree. If Woot was just out to make a profit, why would they reject shirts from with a reason that most derby regulars agree is ridiculous? Sokowa's fish design would have sold very well, and it was still rejected. If it was all about what sells well, there would be no need for Woot to include so many rules as it does. Also, they probably wouldn't have done a "Pixel" derby.

haxrox

mjl9320 wrote:Actually all he did was skirt the issue at hand which is that his entry is a blatant ripoff of previous shirt designs- and a poorly done one at that.

I'd be happy to discuss how I thought of this without foreknowledge of the other designs. PM me and we can talk about how many people can have similar ideas, like how there apparently are a couple apocalyptic forecast designs already out there

toe2254

sokowa wrote:hrm, interesting . . .
Or instead of the winner (which I assume would pick a theme that would help them win again) perhaps one of the fan favorites who didn't win or a lower scoring artist.

good idea.. or possibly giving us several to choose from and the most popular one gets picked..

SailorButterfly

ceetee73 wrote:Thanks for clarifying. I'm still new to the whole Woot derby (about a month into it now), so I miss out on the in jokes a this point.

And at the risk of sounding even more non-hip and oblivious to the lingo around here... could someone let me know what GMV stands for? I see it in a lot of posts around here when people are leaving compliments on a design?

The Derby is awesome and my new addiction even though it's new to me and have, like, approx. 0 chance of ever winning one. Still, it's an awesome way to be challenged each week as a designer.

GMV = got my vote

I like your style. I didn't necessarily want to wear a flaming bag of something probably unpleasant on my chest, but I look forward to what you create in the future. Good luck!

srglancey

sokowa wrote:Ya, sorry about the drama . . . your shirt really is well done, I love the framing and it had my vote

Oh, please don't apologize for the drama. I'm just on my pity-pot. Not that I have any right, I mean, my design wasn't rejected from the fog. I am so sorry that happened, btw. I really loved the elephant and the fish. Both had my vote.

invisiblecrazy

eHalcyon wrote: If Woot was just out to make a profit, why would they reject shirts from with a reason that most derby regulars agree is ridiculous? Sokowa's fish design would have sold very well, and it was still rejected.

To answer the question of WHY:

My impression is that woot is terrified of being sued--so anything with even the *hint* of copyright, from an estate large enough to sue, has them scuttling for cover.

Gary Larson's The Far Side is syndicated by Creator's Syndicate, as well.

All this means there's lots of money and lawyers behind Larson's protection of copyright, and lawyers on retainer like to issue cease and desist notices and are quite willing to sue for their clients at the drop of a hat.

"The purpose of copyright law is to encourage creative work by granting a temporary monopoly in an author's original creations. This monopoly takes the form of six rights in areas where the author retains exclusive control. These rights are:

(1) the right of reproduction (i.e., copying),
(2) the right to create derivative works, (emphasis mine)
(3) the right to distribution,
(4) the right to performance,
(5) the right to display, and
(6) the digital transmission performance right."
By this definition, since sokowa's work wasn't directly parody, and looked vaguely like one of his cartoons, it could be considered derivative and therefore woot could be sued.

The rejection was based on money, plain and simple. Selling a few thousand shirts pales in comparison to the money they would risk by being sued, plus the ordeal of a lawsuit and the possibility of losing.

All this is my take on the issue, of course, considering the pattern of rejections, and the comments on the past rejections about the estate of so-and-so suing them.
This was my geekly post for the day.

Sarcasm makes the person who uses it look ugly.
Hyperbole makes the person who uses it look taller.

Woot.com is operated by Woot Services LLC.
Products on Woot.com are sold by Woot, Inc., other than items on Wine.Woot which are sold by the seller specified on the product detail page.
Product narratives are for entertainment purposes and frequently employ
literary point of view;
the narratives do not express Woot's editorial opinion.
Aside from literary abuse, your use of this site also subjects you to Woot's
terms of use
and
privacy policy.
Woot may designate a user comment as a Quality Post, but that doesn't mean we agree with or guarantee anything said or linked to in that post.